Talk about sugar coating “ They include David Koch, a conservative billionaire who, along with his brother Charles, is rumoured to have pledged millions to remove Barack Obama from the White House.”

The Koch brothers are committed to spending $400 million to get Obama out of office. What a bullshit article Economist.

I went to Southampton College and lived out there near the Koch Bros House. Virtually everyone of those houses was unoccupied in the winter time as these folks, like Romney have houses and assets all over the world.

Nice to see The Economist commenting on the relationship between Koch and Romney at last! Maybe next time the story will be meatier....like how does the Economist see the change that the Koch brothers want to make affecting Americas economy? What are the potential long term effects on Americas society and economy from forcing women to have unwanted children? The effects on the globe from instilling Christian far right values on Americas society and Government?

RootieTootToot - a good suggestion that the Economist ought to present some articles from an economic viewpoint as to what some possible outcomes would be if such policies did become the law of the land following deep-pocketed efforts to get such laws enacted. They have economic surveys and forecasts on nearly everything these days; I am sure there are some out there that estimate what would America look like if there was no Roe v. Wade, no restrictions on gun ownership, tax rates were brought to zero and the EPA as well as the Department of Education were eliminated. This is not saying I support or oppose any of those above legal changes, but any policy shifts should always have long been discussed using a variety of economic models and estimates.

Nice to see The Economist commenting on the relationship between Koch and Romney at last! Maybe next time the story will be meatier....like how does the Economist see the change that the Koch brothers want to make affecting Americas economy? What are the potential long term effects on Americas society and economy from forcing women to have unwanted children? The effects on the globe from instilling Christian far right values on Americas society and Government?

The difference between the Koche brothers and Sarah Jessica Parker is that she grew up poor and earned her position; she is a member of the Screen Actors Guild that supports the rights of workers and the Koche brothers are neo-aristocrats who inherited their wealth. Only to deluded right wingers is being born a form of work.

Weren't her parents Hollywood people? She's been acting since she was a child--so "poor" is stretching it quite a bit I think. And the Koch brothers have made much much more than they inherited (they are also prettier than homely little Sarah).

Amidst this ghastly yet hilarious and almost fascinating line-up of Stunningly Ignorant and Trashy Wanna-Be Presidential Contenders, Consider this if you actually think that Ron Paul is somehow "different":

Ron Paul is just another totally delusional, grandiose, self-important, power-mongering would-be despot, desperately seeking "control;" A manipulative Tyrant-LOSER. Maybe he's not QUITE as stunningly STUPID as all the other Idiots in this Joke of a, ahem, "RACE;" But the FACT remains that, just like ALL the OTHERS, with NO exceptions, he is merely just another vacant, totally Amoral, stupidly arrogant... DIRTBAG; Furthermore, just as with each and every one of these other morons, Ron Paul is thoroughly self-important, self-absorbed, infantile, egomaniacal; His notions of ruling over all are Pure CLAPTRAP; Utter Nonsense; In short, he's a dirty little WINDBAG; And his brand of pathetic "I-told-you-so" swagger literally smacks of that godawful sense of ENTITLEMENT that all these so-called "contenders" seem to possess, same exact [serious character defect] as the Idiot-BUSH.

The point is that ANY ONE with the most basic, fundamental grasp of actions and their CONSEQUENCES could have and DID "predict" all that Ron Paul claims to have "foreseen;" Ron Paul engages in his very own MAGICAL THINKING; He really wants people to believe his BALDERDASH...and some actually DO!! But Any IDIOT, any WITLESS MORON, could plainly foresee every horrible bit of this utter DECIMATION of America, not to mention the rest of this godforsaken world. In the end, Ron Paul is just another CELEBRITY-IDIOT-THUG; So busily, so proudly, so obnoxiously trumpeting his so-called "achievements." He is NOTHING and he is NO ONE.

Amusingly, not one of these morons even seem to realize that, in each of their transparently and shockingly VAIN attempts to, um, (HA!!) Rule the World, they are each defining perfectly their very own, and very Disturbing, Deep-seated Character Disorders: the Narcissistic, Sociopathic, Pathological LIAR.

By the way, FYI, Ron Paul's most egregious and unforgivable stances that I RESENT in ANY CANDIDATE are the following, which all prove to me beyond any doubt that he is nothing more than A DIRTY LITTLE WINDBAG:
1. His statements on Civil Rights are beyond Racist. In fact, he is a thoroughly unapologetic Racist saying such incendiary and, yes, RACIST remarks as this, "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began,” in reference to the Rodney King beating in Los Angeles: He has made countless similar statements and then Blatantly LIES and lamely backpedals. He is a duplicitous moron.
2. He is Pro-Life; That ALONE is enough for me to say directly to him "Mind your own goddamned business and get out of my face." And if that's not enough, there is always the next "issue."
3. He actively courts and shamelessly panders to the most dangerous of all Religious Zealots, the R-Wing fundamentalist "Christians," not to mention his appearances at [filthy] John Birch Society events.
The fact of the matter is that any presidential contenders that puts religion on the table is OUT. These crazed lunatics seem to be constantly playing a game of one-upmanship as to whom has more faith in god whilst the word "god" should never, ever, enter the political arena at all. The most omnipresent danger in politics is religion--and time after time, particularly with the fanatical right-wing conservatives, it, religion, seems to be at the forefront; and this is indeed dangerous. And the dirty little windbag, RON PAUL, is no different!!

Actually, there is only ONE thing that MUST occur to "FIX" a thoroughly Kleptocratic Corporate-Owned Corporate-Run Government. Here it is:

The CRIMINALS must be PROSECUTED for their CRIMES. Absolutely NOTHING will "change," much LESS get "better" until and unless THAT happens. Indeed, if the CRIMINALS are ALLOWED to continue to PLUNDER, it will, in FACT, only get WORSE. MUCH WORSE.

ALL criminals involved in these monstrous, reprehensible, PATHOLOGICAL financial CRIMES, i.e. PLUNDERING, which were clearly, totally and willfully collaborated as a gigantic Scheme to Defraud and totally BILK the very citizens of this, our country, the United States, and, um, the entire world, MUST PAY.

Each one of these lowlife Criminals, including Mitt Romney and his filthy Ilk, must be investigated, Indicted, Prosecuted to the fullest extent of THE NEW LAWS, (all of which will be made retroactive) and, finally, actually PUNISHED SEVERELY; Let me be perfectly clear: Each CRIMINAL that is found GUILTY in the Courts of Law, whether by a judicious Judge that has NOT been paid off, or by a Jury of CITIZENS that are NOT irredeemably STUPID, MUST be held fully Accountable for their [blatant] CRIMES!! And penalties, by the way, will surely entail STIFF terms of imprisonment, according to the LAWS, along with the lawful SEIZURE of ALL ill-gotten gains.

We all know, for example, that George Bush, Dick Cheney, the ENTIRE SORDID CAST...and THAT list goes on and on; And, of course, let's not forget the Bankers and Wall Street!! Jamie Dimon, Lloyd Blankfein, Richard Fuld, Hank Paulson, Larry Sommers, Timothy Geithner, Alan Greenspan; And an astonishingly dizzying and countless number of all the other CRIMINALS; All should be on the TOP of the list for the vigorous investigations and thorough prosecutions.

We MUST HOLD each of these Serial PREDATORS/Criminals FULLY ACCOUNTABLE for their outrageous crimes of Fraud, Scheme to Defraud, Financial Elder Abuse, and COUNTLESS other very serious FELONIES, including WAR CRIMES.

In fact, they should ALL be publicly EXECUTED by HANGING. THEY ARE NOT INNOCENT by a LONG SHOT.

Hmm!! I see you're having lots of FUN!! It must be lots of fun!! PLUNDERING, that is... And plundering the entire global economy!! And so it seems, THAT is just the icing on the cake!! Once you've "Accomplished" all THAT PLUNDERING, I guess the next logical step is pretty obvious!! To RULE the WORLD, of course!!!

I know, I know...You only want to put another notch in your gold-gilt belt!! Hell!! I mean, that's just all part of the GAME!! Then it will feel more, well, More "KING"-Like. Befitting Indeed!! Befitting for a man who quite obviously suffers from an extreme case of SHORT-WILLY COMPLEX.

Ah, yes...Yet ANOTHER Psychopath that SO DESPERATELY wants "IN" to the [Kleptocratic] US Government, so they can be SURE that they'll get THEIR SHARE!!!! And I hear that many of them, Psychopaths, that is, are actually quite charming!! And such adept pathological LIARS!!

So....Um, may I just call you..."Mitt?" Your mother must be very proud, given your, well, your, let's just say...um, "shortcomings?" "Inadequacies?" Well, you get my point...

Indeed, Mitt!! You've certainly ARRIVED!! NOW GO AWAY!! You and everyone like you are the True DREGS of Society; Sucking away at everything in sight, destroying every one in your REPTILIAN, GUTTERSNIPE little world.

So, Mr. Wanna-Be-President!! Now, Let ME tell YOU: If I EVER get HALF a chance, I WILL SPIT right in your FACE. You, SIR, are truly a worthless DIRTBAG.

ROMNEY'S CORNY TELEVISION OUTREACH FAILS TO ANSWER THE CRITICAL QUESTION: How does some one put his name on the paper as Chief Executive Officer (CEO), President and Chairman of a company and still say I wasn't there; I didn't know what was going on. I am surprised indeed that Romney would be so adamant in defending the indefensible. What kind of law did he study? Does he not realize THAT he has legal responsibility once he puts his name on a paper filing to the SEC as CEO, Chairman and President of a company? If he cannot, is he as smart as he says he is. If he would not, is he a leader worthy of our trust. Romney, the serial liar, is asking us to believe his words over his signature and clear legal responsibility as leader of his company. How politically convenient! Too clever by half, most people would say, especially legal analysts. We ask Mr. Romney again: is your signature on a legal document still worth anything? This is a character issue indeed. If you are telling the truth, show us your tax returns for those years in disputes--and this matter will finally be cleared up, including how much tax you paid, the off-shore business and banking affairs and more. When you have no clothes on, you hide behind the tree with your exposed parts covered with thin leaves.

Please stop calling President Obama "Mr." as though he is equal to Mr. Romney. He holds the executive office while Mitt Romney is unemployed (though still making more per year than most American families make in 10 years.) It is completely disrespectful to not refer to him as President. You see the difference yes? One man is a public servant, the other is his challenger who doesn't work.

Unfortunately, these magazines and newspapers are extremely uptight in keeping their conventions, even if they are in direct conflict with proper English.

Which is why, to this date, they still refer to the U.S. Secretary (or Department) of Defense as the "defence secretary," as if it weren't a proper noun and, as such, immune to spelling differences. I haven't seen the first U.S. newspaper to refer to the Labour Party as the "Labor Party," yet every British publication refuses to properly spell the title of our military's civilian chief.

AreYouJoking, I second your plea to The Economist. Surely they must understand that "President of the United States" is a lifetime title. For instance, Bill Clinton is properly called "President," not Mr. or ex-President (we don't say Mr. Washington or ex-President Washington).
How would The Economist feel if foreign news organizations referred to Queen Elizabeth as “Mrs. Windsor”? They should accord the same level of respect to our elected leaders as they expect for their royalty. Thank You.

The two things that I find most amusing about the Koch Brothers are 1) Their father made his money be teaching the old Soviet Union how to better refine gas and 2)That their dad was a founding member of the John Birch Society. Anyway, judging by who is supporting him, its clear to see how a President Romney would run the country. He would put us on a fast track to 21st century feudalism, where there will be only two classes of people. Their filthy rich and the disgustingly poor. With the regressive assualt on educational spending, its clear which category there'll be more of

Reason.com has a good article on "kochtopussy", how leftist mythology blew up the huge myth of Koch brothers supposedly subverting democracy - "oh look they donated 2.5% of money of one of Tea Party groups! oh oh!".

It's always somebody else's fault, it's either CIA funding sabotage or Koch brothers funding Tea Party who of course are supposed to be bumbling fools, there's supposed to be no sense to fiscal conservatism.

The left have always been mentally children and they remain so. Conspiracy theory wrapped in emotional manicheism for idiots. But then, it's easy, cheap, and pleasant scapegoating for left's own ideological failure.

You're exactly right: conspiracies are exclusively a left-wing phenomenon. All that stuff about Obama's being born in Kenya, Obama's being a closet communist, George Soros' being the master puppeteer, Obama's being hellbent on taking away everyone's liberties, Obama's being the puppet of the Trilateral Commission or the Bilderberg Group or what have you, that was all the left, wasn't it?

If you ask me, your dishonesty and blatant double standards in ignoring the ridiculous conspiracy theories much of the right lends credence to (let's not forget the percentage of Republicans who questioned the President's birthplace and still, to this day, question his religion), while belittling any concerns the left may very justifiably have about unrestrained money being poured into politics, are much more symptomatic of an infantile mind than anything you're accusing the left of. You have absolutely no credibility.

Yes, its a complete myth-The Koch Bros aren't funding the Tea Party, they're not funding false "scientific" studies to cause confusion about global warming, and they didn't pledge "whatever it takes" to beat that "socialist" black man in office. After all, why would oil tycoon billionaires from the family that started the racist John Birch Society want less government regulation (of the environment), lower taxes and less accountability, fewer responsibilities to workers, and an ignorant public?
Facts are facts.

Your ignorance of the facts is a sad reminder that dogma is still alive and well. In Wisconsin, Governor Scott Walker refused to take calls from Wisconsinites, but not one from the Koch brothers. He told the Koch brothers that they thought of planting trouble-makers in with the protesters but thought it would backfire. You can read all about the investigation of Walker at http://walkerinvestigation.com. You should also read about how the Koche brothers are trying to buy state power plants for cheap. It isn't a conspiracy theory, if they are actually conspiring against democracy. Don't be such moron.

euroquisling: You write, "The left have always been mentally children and they remain so,", following your suggestion that readers go to a right-of-center website, Reason.com, to read a "good article" posted by a person who identifies themselves as "kochtopussy". With that, I think most would argue that your "child" label is being placed properly here. Wouldn't you agree? As for conspiracy theories, after more than three years of a not-so-small group of people on the right claiming that the current president was actually born in Kenya and the governments in Washington and Honolulu are conspiring to keep it quiet, I would say that when it comes to cloak-and-dagger conspiracies, the right is pretty good in spreading conspiratorial fiction.

You are missing the point here TE. The old system that allows large numbers of donors to give up to $23K (or even $50K) is not so bad bc there is no one small group who can truly feel they bought the president.

Post-Citizens United, we see about 5 people who are each giving many millions of dollars to elect an official. How can we really believe that these couple of individuals will not expect special favors (gov contracts, leases for oil drilling on public land, etc) in the future?

Oh, yes, the disingenious Tea Party/GOP-controlled US Congress will stymie every proposal Obama makes to get this country moving forward again - and then turns around and claims Obama isn't doing anything! How's that for *wickedly smart*???? Make no mistake. All of you Tea Party clowns and clownettes in the US congress, you will all go down in flames come November.

More leftist lying: "oh no it's not that we're hollow ideologically and the leftist ideas turned out to be fake nonsense, it's CIA / Koch brothers / kulaks money that is at work!"

It's kind of silly for left to believe that money subverts democracy so easily while the left can fix it all: dumb manicheism "evil rich / us poor incorruptible good we'll set the social democracy right!"

No you won't, and it's not the fault or making of the rich. The rich don't matter in this picture.

All the undocumented money that Democrats and "labor" unions have poured into Wisconsin - the money they did not have to disclose at all and the recall election of Scott Walker was a "life and death" issue to them, so most probably it was a lot of money - failed to sway the voters.

You're an idiot. Walker reported job numbers that double and triple counted "jobs" and not people. The JS newspaper printed it and then Walker cited his own press release. Walker vilified public employees calling them the "haves" while giving away tax breaks to the rich - Diane Hendrick's ABC Building Supply paid no taxes this year forgetting that it was the housing industry that caused the recession in the first place. Instead, they were socialized onto the backs of teachers. Do you really think that the media wants a pro-labor candidate? Shut up if you don't know what you are talking about.

I'm just a middle class man...but if I inherited a billion dollars I would want to help make America a better place ...and I would donate some of my money to the very same things that the Koch brothers donated their money to...fighting the super powerful public sector unions that are bleeding and sucking the middle class to death. Most leeches will limit how hard thay suck their host so as to keep the host alive...but not public sector unions. These thugs are sucking so hard that they are killing the host. A third California city declared bankruptcy this week. Stay tuned...more hosts to die soon.

Ernest King, I see from your previous posts that you retired from government employment at age 49. Perhaps this skews your ability to rationally debate the problem America is having with large powerful public sector unions thugs????

Er, what? (1) I've worked with my family's business all my life, (2) I'm not even 45, (3) I wouldn't disclose such personal information online, (4) if I did work with the government and loved it so much, I wouldn't retire at such an early age, and (5) I'm baffled as to where you got this information from, because I have fewer than 10 comments on The Economist, none of which even contain the number 49, not even within a quote.

Even if all your information were correct, your dismissal of my comment would be a clear example of an ad-hominem fallacy (look it up, because evidently you don't believe what I say). More than that, the fact that you are even trying to go on such a meaningless tangent means you aren't willing (or perhaps even able) to tackle this debate head-on and, in a blatantly sophomoric fashion, just decided to go for the discrediting-your-opponent strategy.

Sorry if I broke your illusions of delivering a knockout punch. That was actually rather embarrassing.

Right, because the "da rich" are the people who demand that the middle-class taxpayers pay for their pensions, health care, inflated salaries, etc? Too bad it's "the rich" who aren't politically connected -- your family doctor, local small business owners, etc -- who actually pay the taxes. Meanwhile the "rich" who produce things like warships that consumers don't actually want or need and are coincidentally BFFs with the politicians effectively pay nothing. So raise the taxes on the people who actually produce valuable goods and services in the economy for the benefit of the leeches, both poor and unearned wealthy? Government beneficiaries know no economic standing -- producers are producers and freeloaders are freeloaders.

"The rich" - telling that you need to put it in quotation marks suck at the teet of the state just as much as others - national and local security, roads and infrastructure, social security...
Don't make a fool of yourself by pretending that rich people don't rely on the state. If that is really how you feel, and are one yourself, your proof will come from going to live 10 years in Mogadishu. Bye bye.

That's just the line of thought that the Koch brothers are trying to spread and promote, with ample benefit on their end and no benefit on the end of those who believe it. You may, of course, disagree, but at least hear me out:
You've clearly established two kinds of "rich": well-to-do professionals and small-business owners (what I would actually call "upper middle class," not "rich" necessarily); and wealthy executives, investors, managers, etc., who we would all agree to call "the rich." Your argument hinges on the assumption that I support higher taxes for the former and the same lax policies of today for the latter.
I don't know where exactly you got that, because never in my post did I mention some sort of income threshold past which you'd be exempted from the kind of higher taxes for the rich that I advocate. If anything, the kind of "rich" that you're defending usually make a bit less than $250,000 a year, which is the kind of rich that no one is saying we should increase taxes on.
On the contrary, if you re-read the thread, you'll realize that the OP was talking about what he would do "if he inherited a billion dollars." Seeing as I responded to such prompt, and within the context of a Koch Brothers article, I think it stands to reason that I support higher taxes for the very, very rich. Again, I don't understand how you assumed that I condone the political pandering to these people.

Also, I resent the last bit of your comment, as if anyone who supported higher taxes on the rich were a freeloader or even supported freeloaders. Do you really think Denmark and the Netherlands are full of freeloaders? With GDPs PPP per capita significantly smaller than ours, they've achieved a similar standard of living and comparable productivity figures—only with less unemployment, less poverty, and much more social equality. Is that so bad?

The old story that taxing the rich is bad for the economy has been proven wrong by decades of prosperity under high tax rates (read: late '90s) and decades of struggle under low tax rates (read: late '00s).

They use these things the same way, and for the same reason, socialists buy bread. Congressman Ron Paul recently discussed how he collects Social Security, benefits from a program he and I strongly oppose. When you are forced to buy a product at the barrel of a gun, you might as well attempt to make the best of the situation and reclaim what was taken from you to whatever extent possible.
Oh, and as for for the "Mogadishu" argument, I could suggest Pyongyang to you, where no mean ole rich can bother you, nor can any annoying dissenters live to complain about the glorious system of government-mandated equality.

The "upper middle class" - I come from a family of rural Ohio physicians. Trust me, they are not involved with the financial industry nor are they the executives of anything. They will be affected adversely by the tax increases and by the new healthcare law.
The "two kinds of rich" - I do not accuse you of overtly holding the position that the government-sponsored rich (e.g. Halliburton) and the market-created rich (e.g. a tech entrepreneur) SHOULD be taxed at two different rates. I'm saying that they are, and will continue to be, taxed at two different rates because one gets the big contracts, subsidies, and loopholes and regulations carefully crafted by their politician friends from the government. Until the income tax code is either totally simplified or better yet abolished, this will not change. I will give you that this will happen the same at 35% or 39%, and the bickering between the left and the right about this is mostly political theater.
Northern Europe -- Let's keep in mind that while they spend on wealth transfer programs, they're not spending on military largesse and undeclared wars. I don't know of any Danish military bases in over 100 countries for which taxpaying Danes are being put on the hook. Unfortunately, in the US this is not up for debate either. While I'd accept slightly higher taxes on those who make over a million a year or so in return for cutting foreign spending and stringent civil liberties protection, the Democrats and the President have firmly demonstrated that any overtures to that sort of agenda are, once again, political theater.
The last paragraph: I think it's a bit much to say 35% in the 00's is "low" and 39% in the 90's was "high." We could go to a more pointed example in comparing the 70's and 80's where tax rates went from ~70% to ~28% while the economy went from very bad to very good. Too bad senile old Reagan couldn't stick to his guns on almost any other aspect of the smaller-government agenda.

Thanks for an educated response.
Evidently, we both oppose loopholes and subsidies and the general pandering to a privileged few. But I think we can both agree that that's not an inherently partisan problem, so turning to one party for the solution to that problem is not necessarily wise. Most Americans know that getting rid of all incumbents would be a wise first step, but unfortunately there exists a "I hate all incumbents except for mine" mentality that makes them much more immune to getting voted out of office than we would all like. That's the reason why people like Harry Reid and John Boehner, with abysmal nationwide approval ratings, continue to get elected. I oppose the abolishment of income taxes—because I think we would ever be able to address the deficit problem without both reducing outlays and increasing revenue—but I totally support the rewriting of the tax code. You may have your own complaints about how Democrats would approach this issue, but I can tell you one thing: I'm aware that Republicans are unwilling to even talk about taxes unless any sort of revenue increase is completely off the table a priori, and I detest such stubbornness on their part.
As for Northern Europe, yes, that's true, and I'm aware that those hundreds of billions we spend on our military would go a long way either reducing our deficit (if we didn't spend them) or helping find so many of our underfunded programs (infrastructure, healthcare coverage, etc.), but my point mainly was that the heavier tax burden on their wealthier brackets aren't detrimental to their employment rate, which has been the right's paramount argument against letting tax cuts for the rich expire.
And lastly, well, it *may* be exaggerated to say that Clinton tax rates were high and Bush tax rates were low, but if that's the case -- then what's the fuss about? Why the vehement opposition to letting Bush tax cuts for the rich expire? Their expiration would cut $830 billion from the deficit over the next 10 years. It may not seem like much when we're having trillion-dollar deficits every year, but it does add up. It's better to add that to spending cuts than nothing.
Also, bear in mind that as Reagan was grappling with the recession, the top-bracket tax rate went down from 70% (well outside the range that I would even support) to 50% (still more than I'd ask for), not the 28% that actually came later that decade. Tax rates went back up in the '90s and, instead of tanking, the economy boomed, as it did in the '50s, when the tax rate for wealthiest Americans was around 90%. I'm not trying to establish causation here, let alone suggest that 90% tax rates will alleviate our problems -- I'm just trying to suggest that it isn't the other way around, either, and that lower taxes on the rich doesn't always mean more economic prosperity.

You honestly believe that the benevolent richest of the rich have your interests at heart. You don't trust unions? Well, that's okay. We were totally better off when workers had no power to organize, worked for basically nothing in unsafe conditions with no breaks, maternity leave, workman's comp, sick days, vacation days, etc. Hell, why don't you just come out and say what you really think-indentured servitude is awesome! VIVA LA SERFDOM!!

There are no greater group of leeches and parasites than Mission Accomplished republicans. They have socialized everyone of their stupid and incompetent policies onto everyone else. You are just another right wing coward.

tryworkingforaliving: While I also cannot say I strongly support public sector unions - with my views mostly based on the same concerns that Franklin D. Roosevelt had over them and not the more recent and often hyperbolic rhetoric that the far right puts out there on such unions these days - I should point out that both the left and right have deep-pocketed donors who try to influence politicians. The right has the Koch brothers; the left has George Soros. The right has the NRA, the left has Hollywood moguls. The right and left similarly accuse each other's well-heeled donors for trying to skew the government in their direction. That much is the same. However, the difference is not that one side has these types of donors while the other does not; the difference exists in who will benefit from the policies they are pushing (besides themselves and their own business interests, of course). The Koch brothers' donations are mostly intended to help a group of people who already have considerable wealth and power and can get by on their own; Soros' donations are intended to help directly or indirectly groups which have not only seen their standards of living been reduced considerably over the past few decades, but also have even less power to bring about changes in the government they pay taxes to, given Supreme Court decisions which gave new power to corporations to donate as much as they like to political candidates as well as calls for tougher voting restrictions. I actually am fairly in the middle on many of these issues and also in terms of lack of interest in supporting deep-pocketed donors from the left or right, but Ernest J. King appears to be correct: If you support the Koch brothers in their crusades, don't for a second believe you would be fighting FOR the middle class.

Ernest J. King, tryworkingforaliving must have been hoping you would not respond so he/she could disseminate false information about you. Good to see you came back and replied. Actually, I sympathize with traditional conservatives and other mainstream Republicans who have seen the GOP hijacked at times by a bunch of people who like to label others and make up facts out of thin air to manufacture their arguments. I guess footnotes, links and peer-reviewed journals are not the chosen means to add validity to these people's comments. Instead, just make it up and hope no one notices.

tryworkingforaliving, no where in my comment did I mention welfare benefits nor did I say that I believe poor people will benefit from welfare benefits, so your question to me is incorrect. If you can find exactly where I discussed "welfare benefits" and where I said I think they benefit poor people, please let me know. Otherwise, I'd guess you were trying to put words in my mouth (or in this case, my writing) so you could challenge a point I was in fact not making.

TPLSC, I'm sorry...I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. You said something that means a lot to me...the statement: "the difference exists in who will benefit from the policies they are pushing". I believe in these words. Most anytime I vote...I try to vote for a better future for the world (after I'm dead & gone). I think you are same way....and yet I strongly oppose the democrat party and you seem to support the democrats. I just find this interesting...we both vote for those we think will promote the common good...and yet we vote for very different people.

tryworkingforaliving: Thanks for the apology. I made it a point to reply to your comment because I see a lot of people these days labeling those with whom they disagree and also assuming that, as you partly do here, if one does not agree with everything the GOP does, they must be a true blue Democrat, if not some sort of socialist. This is not always done by the right these days; however, with a Democrat in the White House, the rhetoric and labeling from the right has been pretty vicious. I should point out that when a Republican occupied the White House, the left was at times equally vocal with labels of "fascist" and also warning the US was going to collapse under Bush. As for me, that is hardly the case. First, just because I may disagree with what some of what this crop of GOP leaders and opinion-makers are pushing does not mean I am a card-carrying Democrat nor that I vote that way. People do have a right to not vote at all, which is a right I exercise often these days. Also, just as I said at the beginning of all this, people like the Koch brothers basically argue that unless you agree with everything they stand for, you are un-American as well as a socialist. Not only is this not true, but there are many conservatives who do not agree with the Koch brothers' points of view, either; me being one of them. So yes, Workingforaliving, you can want a better future for everyone and still not agree with the way that either the GOP or Democratic leaders are proposing to do it. Meanwhile, I don't know who you vote for so please don't go assuming you know for whom I do. Thanks.

Can the Koch brothers really be considered "successful" when the source of their wealth is inherited? If the two of them had started from nothing, would they have ever achieved anything in business or life? We'll never know, but allowing plutocracy to flourish for fear of "punishing success" seems a rather poor way to go. Our founding fathers distrusted inherited titles and for the vast majority of our history inheritance taxes stood in the way of creating the likes of the Koch brothers. It is very hard to make the case that the brothers' activities are good for democracy as much as it is good for them.

He earned about half of his (sizeable) income from presidential pay, the other half from book royalties according the the NYT in April. Over the past few years, if I recall correctly, booksales have been the bulk of his income, but he was a Senator when elected, and a state rep and college professor in Illinois before then. His wife also pulled in a more than comfortable wage as a hospital exec. before he was elected.

I'm curious why you ask - is Obama trying to buy the elction with his own money?

" George Clooney and Sarah Jessica Parker have both hosted events for him."

I don't think you understand. People who shop for shoes and play heros on TV are Forces of Good, personified. People who make toilet paper and keep pipelines running to keep you warm at night are Evil Demon Spawns.

Liberal progressive democrats love rich people who are hollywood actors, singers, dancers, football players, etc. But they don't like rich business men & women. Stricks me as odd...but hey....they're liberal democrats...that's just how they think.

Maybe because rich democrats are in favor of paying more in taxes to alleviate this country's budge problems. Rich republicans' solution? "Let me keep more of my money so I can raise more money to help elect people who will let me keep more of my money." The two are inherently different kinds of rich.

Also, rich Democrats like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Larry Ellison, and virtually the entire Silicon Valley crowd have done more to make America's economy the world's most innovative and dynamic than the Koch brothers could possibly dream of.

Except that Sarah grew up poor and earned her position Except that SAG supports worker's rights and a living wage. Except that you are a totally parasite who has to leech off the intelligence of others or your stupid ideas would have destroyed your life already.

If that's the case, I would argue that SAG supports high unemployment (see Spain, for example, with all their workers rights and living wages). I'm not sure what would make me a parasite - I've never been on welfare, and to the extent that I borrowed money, I always paid it back, and I always pay for what I use.

A group of pseudo commies want to shove their third world agendas and hatreds in our faces. I am fed up with this BS. Instead of protesting the wealthy these unhappy idiots should go do something productive with their time. Why don't they protest against the super rich who have 40K a plate dinners for Obama, why?

You simply don't get it. These men are drowning out the average citizen's voice with their money. They want to subvert U.S. laws and regulations that help protect citizens and the environment.
If that's "communism", then call me a commie. And what exactly do you get out of the Cock Brothers' obscene wealth? What's in it for you that makes you label ordinary citizens communist?
Come on, tell us smart guy. You super duper American you...

The money for intellectualoids like you is some sort of magic dust: if democracy and rule of law are so easily corrupted by money, then NO country in the world could be safe. And if officials, voters and MPs are so easily swayed by money, then they will go for money first no matter what, whether they get money from rich guys or not.

Now, there are corrupt and dictatorial countries in the world: say, Zimbabwe or Azerbaijan.

But it's not money that corrupts them. It's corruption being the first cause that seeks money and other benefits. Hence, Azerbaijan "president for life" being the richest man there.

In countries with rule of law, though, money is necessary: for running political campaign, for offices, for leaflets, telephones, etc. While necessary, money is not root cause that moves political process in countries that are irrationally uncorrupted to become rationally rich via rule of law.

All that blather about Koch and others' money is merely a narcotic: it turns off realistic thinking. Like some conspiracy theory. It's the same "short" thinking, not proceeding beyond the cause that's supposed to be the end of it all: money! conspiracy! Bilderbergers!

If you knew the first thing about the third world, you would know that the koch brothers are trying to turn the U.S. into a third world country. What are the defining features of any third world country? Great income disparity, very low taxes on the wealthy, and a wealthy class that buys elections to maintain the status quo.

I currently live in a country where 80% of the people work for minimum wage, which is about U$320/month based on a 48 hour work week. Where do you think the Koch brothers want to take the U.S.? To an economy where workers are paid more, or to an economy where they can get away with paying blue collar workers $1.50/hr?

And do you why the communist revolutionary group FARC has been able to maintain their 50 year war i in Colombia? Because Colombia is the country where 80% the population has to try to live on $320/month.

If you really are against communism, and if you want to stop the spread of communism, then you should realize that the best to do so is to ensure that the working class, the 80%, has a decent living, decent housing, decent healthcare, educational opportunities, and the opportunity to move out of the working class. While the koch brothers may be against communism, there agenda is doing nothing but fanning its flames.

Not every country allows $ to have such a strong influence on government-but to a degree it does corrupt anywhere. Private money is not necessary in politics-elections should be publicly funded and equal airtime should be a guarantee on the networks.

You're insisting its a conspiracy, but you're dogmatic insistence in the face of clear evidence is evidence enough that money is a harmful influence. Money pays for the very lies you're subscribing to. Facts are facts, and you're missing them.

Yet another lame accusation of conspiracy theory. Seriously, is this the best you guys have? Tell me, why is $1 billion dollars needed to elect a president?

Could it be because the regional telecoms bought the formerly public airwaves, in the pursuit of obscene profits from politicians? It doesn't need to cost nearly this much if politicians had allotted free time on the TV or radio. But no, Congress sold all that to the media barons years ago. THAT is where the vast majority of campaign money goes to. NOT for renting office space or fucking leaflets. Are you joking?

I don't know where you are from, but you very obviously don't know a rat's ass about American politics. If you think for one minute that the Cock Bros are not expecting favors for their industries, for all the money that they pour into the various coffers of Washington politicians, you are a huge fool.

And it is huge fools who allow a great democracy, to slower but surely turn into a plutocracy.

Save your sophomoric lectures for people who will actually fall for them. Intellectually shallow...you sir are funny...

To clarify, there are still public airwaves...but with the telecom act of 1996, media consolidation ensued, leaving the U.S. with very few media alternatives. Less alternatives = higher media prices. I'm sure that's just the way their lobbyists wanted it before they got that act passed.

And by the way, Quisling was a traitor to his people. So that handle seems quite fitting for a billionaire lapdog such as yourself.

So the protesters' wrath should be aimed at Romney and Koch, and not at Obama and Soros, because Romney's doing better at playing the game at the moment? That seems like pretty shallow grounds for choosing which side to yell at. Were these people yelling at Obama in 2008? Somehow I doubt it.